Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Dan L. Date: Nov 17, 2008 4:34pm
Forum: classic_tv Subject: Re: George Harrison vs. George Martin

Wow, that's the term alright. It's controversial though in my opinion.

I think it's very thoughtful on your part. But to use the term ascribes a motive/defense of sorts. I would AGREE that IF you one thinks the song are similar enough and that IF there was a thought/memory process involved, that would be the best term.

That IS what the court concluded. But this one has always struck me as a difficult legal decision...

From wikipedia "Harrison stated that he was inspired to write "My Sweet Lord" after hearing the Edwin Hawkins Singers' "Oh Happy Day"." NOT the Chiffons' He's So Fine

George was initially supported in the case by manager Allen Klein, but when Klein became owner of Bright Tunes music (which owned He's So Fine) funny...he no longer supported Harrison! So funny how this is a matter of opinion...and interested parties.

I personally don't even believe that it's that! I'm not even sure that it's not an independent work - it's only the vocal part which is similar to me, for part of the song (he's so fine....my sweet lord...doo lang doo lang) once it switches (I really wanna....) I'm no longer certain there's anything similar anymore.

This will have been analyzed over and over. Even the courts in a way defended Harrison's integrity by concluding it was unintentional. I would have awarded in Harrison's favour and I think that the 'plagiarism' IF ANY was at MOST unintentional.

Opinions?

BTW - I like both songs...

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)